The central legal point established in the judgment is that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and award of punishment should not bar the grant of Selection Grade/Special Grade, as per the relevant government orders and letters.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of appointment of Selection Grade Supervisor Grade IV (Leather) by the first respondent in Rc.No.14983/E2(3)/2009 dated 12.11.2012 and consequential rejection of Appeal in Na.Ka.No.14983/E2(3)/2009 dated 17.06.2013 by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the first respondent to grant Selection Grade to the petitioner in the post of Leather Supervisor Grade IV with effect from 26.04.2004 with all consequential benefits within a time stipulated by this Court.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order of appointment of Selection Grade Supervisor Grade IV (Leather) by the first respondent in Rc.No.14983/E2(3)/2009 dated 12.11.2012 and consequential rejection of Appeal in Na.Ka.No.14983/E2(3)/2009 dated 17.06.2013 by the first respondent and consequently directing the first respondent to grant Selection Grade to the petitioner in the post of Leather Supervisor Grade IV with effect from 26.04.2004 with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined as Leather Supervisor Grade-IV in the respondents office on 27.06.1994. He is entitled to Selection Grade with effect from 27.06.2004. However, the first respondent by proceedings in Rc.No.14983/E2(3)/2009, dated 12.11.2012, granted Selection Grade to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2011, instead of 27.06.2004. Hence, he preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 05.01.2013 to grant Selection Grade with effect from 27.06.2004. However, the first respondent rejected the appeal by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.14983/E2(3)2009, dated 17.06.2013 holding that during the relevant period, disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and he suffered the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect by proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.19895/2003/E 4(1), dated 17.10.2008 and subsequently, his appeal was also dismissed by the Khadi Board Proceedings on 07.01.2010. Prior to that, the petitioner suffered a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect in the first respondent proceedings in Na.Ka.No. 64990/2000/E3(1), dated 31.05.2007. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board. The said appeal was also dismissed on 07.01.2010. As per G.O.Ms.No.68, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PER-M) Department, dated 23.01.1986, for advancement of Selection/Special Grade on completion of 10/20 years, the Government servant should put in satisfactory service. However the said impediment was removed pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.276, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel- S) Department, dated 07.08.1992. G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.10.1993 was issued for promotion to the higher posts. In Letter No.5381/S/94-7, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (S) Department, dated 24.02.1995, it was mentioned that persons undergoing the punishment of increment with or without cumulative effect should also be considered for movement to Selection Grade or Special Grade. Without giving the benefits of these Government Orders and letter, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's request through the impugned order in Rc.No.14983/E2(3)/2009, dated 12.11.2012 and rejected the Appeal in Na.Ka.No.14983/E2(3)/2009 dated 17.06.2013. Therefore this Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner produced the order of this Court in W.P.No.7008 of 2007 (A.Sundarraj Vs. The Secretary to Government, Handlooms, Handicrafts, Textiles and Khadi Department and another), dated 01.09.2009, for the proposition that pendency of disciplinary proceed